Strong Atheism

[Ben Davis]

As I've posted on another thread, for me a declaration of antitheism depends on the god-claim in question. Like others here, I'm as certain as it's possible to be that the Abrahamic god doesn't and can't exist because it's an obvious set of contradictions. I can argue it's non-existence by pointing out the errors in the attribute-definitions of the god thus meeting a 'burden of proof' for my antitheism. The same goes for the Hindu gods and every other 'interventionist' deity I've examined: mythology, the lot of them.

As for Deist/non-interventionist gods, there's no way to meet any burden of proof, for or against because there's no way to tell them apart from things which don't exist. I always find myself wondering why deists would even be interested in such an irrelevant & functionless god.

---

He is the incomprehensible, unapproachable radiant being whom the ordinary senses and ordinary intellect cannot fathom grasp or able to describe even with partial success. He is the mysterious Being totally out of the reach of all sensory activity, rationale effort and mere intellectual, decorative and pompous endeavor.

I wouldn't know where to start if I had to prove that this concept doesn't exist.

By pointing out that if there's no way to tell if it exists or not, it might as well not exist. The problem is that this definition means that Brahman can't interact with us however hindus all over the world have described visions of and messages from Brahman. This contradiction demonstrates that the definition cannot be met therefore this god doesn't exist.

Regarding your points on the implications of neurology, we've started dicussing that here so I won't duplicate that in this thread.